Barack Obama for 2008?

[cityboi]

Realistically, by the time the USA is ready to elect a Black man to President, Obama will be too old to run. The Democrats could run him as a Vice president in the future, but that will only insure they will lose another election

Remember with just one exception. All US Presidents have been members of the WASP males only club.

I think people tend to vote for people who not only look like themselves but share their ideals and values. Unfortunately people still look at skin color. America will eventually have a black president. But it will happen once the racial make up of this country shifts. By 2050 it is projected that there will be more minorities (combined ethnic backgrounds) than caucasions. Once this happens there will be a realistic chance of America having an African-American or latino president.

[urbanguy]

I'd definately vote for him plus he's originally from Hawaii so that makes him twice as cool in my books

[intcvlcphlga]

On Sunday's Meet the Press he vowed to complete his Senate term which runs through 2010. That said, I'm sure he will be on the VP short-list for the Democrats. So far, he has come across as one of the more eloquent, measured politicians in years regardless of his race. He's akin to someone like John Edwards in terms of his charm, intelligence and overall effect on the electorate.

[GRDadof3]

On Sunday's Meet the Press he vowed to complete his Senate term which runs through 2010. That said, I'm sure he will be on the VP short-list for the Democrats. So far, he has come across as one of the more eloquent, measured politicians in years regardless of his race. He's akin to someone like John Edwards in terms of his charm, intelligence and overall effect on the electorate.

So he'll lose

[TennBear]

Barack is not ready yet. Condi would never get the nomination. Although she is smart and talented, she does not have good television appeal. Imagine her in an hour-long television debate. Hillary is hard to watch for that long either. In this day and age, only attractive people will be elected President. Both candidates will be people not currently on the national stage (you heard it here first ).

GRDadof, I couldn't agree with you more. In the modern era from Nixon vs Kennedy on, the individual who was more personable on TV has won every election. The Dems also have to nominate someone from the South. They cannot win unless they carry some Southern states. At this point, I cannot think of anyone that the Dems can nominate. Maybe that is why Obama is getting mention on this Blog. He is the latest big new name. As far as Condi goes, she is as personable as a dish rag. She puts people to sleep within the first ten minutes.

Snowguy, Who is Mark Dayton. I have never heard of him. I can tell you that if we are this close to the Presidential election and people don't even recognize his name, he can't win no matter how good he is.

You also seem to be predicting major loses by the Reps this election. I can't see it happening. The districts have been so gerrymandered to protect those currently in office and the Republican publicity machine is so go at framing issues in the way that they want them framed that I can't see it happening.

The Republicans have managed to frame any honest debate as being anti-American. Between waving the flag, praising the Lord, and defeating the terrorists; they have been able to slowly take away the rights of Americans with the people cheering as they go away. I certainly think that they have chosen messages that most people agree with. They have framed the debates to match those messages and not what the dabate should really be over. For instance, Gay Marrage is debated as a religious issue. When in fact, it is an issue of fairness and equality. If you frame the issue as, "Do you think that one group of people should be denied the right to decide on legal, medical, and financial issues for their families just because they are of a certain group?" Most people would say no. But when you frame it as, "Gays are trying to destroy the family and family values, do you want to see these unGodly evil pedophiles destoy our families, destroy our religion, and flaunt their sins?" The answer is a resounding no. I am not trying to start a debate on Gay Marrage and there are other Blogs here on the issue. I was just trying to use an issue that can be clearly framed in two very distinct ways.

Well, I guess that I have stirred up things enough for now.

[Snowguy716]

Mark Dayton is a senator from Minnesota. He's actually the "senior" senator with republican Norm Coleman being the junior. Mark Dayton is not re-running for senate this fall.

Vying for that seat are Mark Kennedy and Amy Klobuchar (DFL). I don't see Kennedy winning this election.

I also don't see our governor being re-elected. There's a lot going against him right now: People are angry at all incumbents, and especially him, for a budget showdown that shut down the state government last summer. They've seen him argue that he fixed a $4.2 billion budget shortfall without raising taxes when in fact fees and property taxes have gone up astronomically.

I think the current attorney general, Mike Hatch, will get the job.

For federal, I think all democrats will go back to the house and we will probably pick at least one up in the district that Mark Kennedy is leaving. 2 recent special elections for the state legislature featured landslide victories for the democrats... it's the most conservative district in the state. The rest of the districts are pretty solid incumbents and it would take something big to shake that up.

Minnesotas legislature will likely go democrat all across the board. Currently, dems control the senate and republicans control the house with a 1 seat majority.

But you're right.. on the national level, it will be hard to see Democrats making huge gains unless they can really start getting a platform together. But at the same time, I don't see republicans doing much either. The economy is slowing, we have record budget deficits, Iraq is stagnating, and the federal government has had a string of failures on things from social security reform to natural disaster relief.

Maybe the die hard republicans of Kansas wont' change much.. but I could see Ohio or the more "progressive" farm states like Iowa, Wisconsin, and Illinois sending more Democrats to congress.

[Rural King]

^To add on to the issue of picking up seats in the Midwest, I think in a few years there will be one or two more Democrats from Indiana, probably moderate to conservative blue dogs. A couple of districts would just become too competative if the right Dem candidates are found. I don't see more than 3-4 though out the 9 IN congressional districts becoming Dem, but the state can generate more than 2 IMO.

Thats how the Dems will have to go about picking up the House, targeting districts they can carry with the right candidate in districts where moderate/conservative Dems with some financial aid from the national party can win. The National Party has to start putting money in races in the Midwest and South where moderate/conservative Dems can win by being "insert state" Democrats and not national Democrats.

[jaxpalmer]

wesley clark is the one you want.

[Charlotteman]

Nice discussion:) First I shall mention that I am a Washington State Democrat! Washington State is about as blue as a state could be, so understand my perspective-lol

Normally I would agree with the earlier statement that it takes a Southern Democrat to win. But Richardson presents a new possibility.

John Kerry was able to carry quite a few states, and he was perhaps the worst candidate the dems have nominated since McGovern in 1972. I think one can assume almost any dem nominee could carry the Kerry states in 2008. (except Hillary--she would probably carry the 1988 Dukakis blue states)

Imagine if you will, Richardson carrying all the former Kerry blue states AND New Mexico, Arizona and possibly Nevada. A dem win without the South. The dems will probably have to forget about the South for a while. Concentrate on states that hold a real possibility of a win---like New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada.

And of course the dems cannot, for one second, take those 2004 blue states for granted!

I would love to see Obama as president. I can't think of anyone I would rather have protecting me and my civil rights, and my freedom from intrusion, and my freedom from worry re:a foreign attack.

But I still say for 2008, the dems should nominate Richardson:) all this just my humble opinion!

[Snowguy716]

If the Dems have a really good candidate, I could see the democrat picking up all the 2004 states plus Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, and possibly Florida. That would be a pretty strong win for the dem. I think Nevada is swinging to the left with the explosive growth in Las Vegas.

If it were a Hillary/Rice competition, it'd be a tough race. If it was a McCain/Clinton ticket, McCain would win hands down. The only way to have a woman make the presidency right now is to have two women run. There's too much sexism out there still.

[Snowguy716]

.

[Rural King]

I don't think you should write off the South or any region, you just have to pick out states each states you can be competative in during a Prez race, mainly: Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina, Virginia, Louisiana (post-Katrina ?, maybe less so), and Florida. The Dems have to willing to spend money the South and other more conservative/Republican leaning regions to retain or gain US Senate and House seats. Writing off states is a good way for down ballot local, state, and federal candidates to get beat and hand over more congressional, state, and local control to Republicans IMO.

[Snowguy716]

Do you think Louisiana has gone more Republican since Katrina... or why do you say it might be less competitive?

For sure Republican: South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Indiana, Alaska

Lean Republican: West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arizona, Colorado, Arkansas, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Arizona

Toss up: Oregon, New Mexico, Iowa, Ohio, Florida, Nevada

Lean Democrat: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington, Delaware, Maryland, Michigan

Democrat: Maine, Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington D.C, Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii

[Rural King]

^ The folks most likely to come back are a critical part of the Dem base for statewide elections, ie poorer voters from New Orleans and other hard hit regions in S. Louisiana. If they aren't in state during the next election cycle(s) or if their numbers are significantly diluted, I imagine that key swing voting bloc for the Dems might highly be weakened and unable keep statewide races competative. Lots of displaced folks are going to settle down in their new states at some point, or have bigger concerns that casting absentee ballots in a LA election, so this key Dem constinuency that has pulled the Dems through many close statewide elections will be most likely much weaker in impact for at least several cycles to come, and may never again return with the same impact it had pre-Katrina.